Two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by JJ Packman MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010535 64 Molesey Road, Hersham, Surrey, Walton-On-Thames, KT12 4RG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Petrit Prenga against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council. • The application 2026/0653. • The development proposed is a two storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During my site visit, I observed that construction work was underway. This appears to relate to development authorised under planning permission ref. 2026/0154. Consequently, the submitted existing drawings no longer accurately reflect the current appearance of the dwelling. Nevertheless, the proposed drawings illustrate the development with sufficient clarity to enable me to determine this appeal. 3. Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in August 2026. The revised Framework is a material consideration in this appeal, and I have taken relevant national decision-making policies into account. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof, situated on Molesey Road within an established residential area. The surrounding area is characterised by semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The appeal property forms part of a group of similarly designed dwellings. 6. Many of the surrounding properties have been extended, with the area including both single-storey and two-storey rear extensions. The neighbouring attached property, No. 66, has a single-storey rear extension with a lean-to pitched roof. Rear extensions elsewhere in the local area incorporate a variety of roof forms, including pitched and flat roofs. Appeal Decision 6010535 2 7. The proposal is for a two-storey rear extension with a flat roof. It would project from the rear elevation of the dwelling, aligning with the single-storey rear extension of the attached neighbouring property (No. 66). 8. As a result of its simple flat-roofed design, the proposal would have an awkward and incongruous appearance, which would be particularly noticeable given its two- storey height. The proposal would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing hipped roof form and established proportions of the host dwelling. Rather than appearing as a sympathetic addition, it would interrupt the cohesive roof form of the dwelling and appear as an abrupt, box-like addition. 9. Whilst I observed that rear extensions within the area incorporate a variety of roof forms, the proposed extension would not respond positively to the design of this dwelling. Its relationship with the attached property, No. 66, would further reinforce this impression, appearing jarring alongside the more sympathetic single-storey rear extension with its lean-to roof. Consequently, the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 10. My findings are also consistent with the Elmbridge Design Code (2024), which advises that the roof of an extension should be similar to that of the existing house in terms of its scale, design and pitch, and that properties with pitched roofs should not have flat-roofed extensions. The proposal would not accord with this design guidance. 11. Whilst I acknowledge that there are examples of two-storey rear extensions with flat roofs elsewhere on Molesey Road, including those at Nos 52, 54 and 70 identified by the appellant, I do not find that these examples justify the proposal before me. In any event, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and, for the reasons given above, I find that the proposed flat-roofed extension would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling. 12. I have also had regard to the appellant's view that the extension would be located to the rear of the dwelling and would have limited visibility from the public realm. Whilst this would reduce its prominence within the street scene, it would nevertheless remain visible from neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. In any event, the proposal's poor relationship with the host dwelling would persist irrespective of the extent of its public visibility. 13. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (2011), which seeks high quality design that responds sensitively to local character, Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan (2015), which requires development to preserve or enhance the character of the surrounding area, the Elmbridge Design Code (2024), and Policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which requires proposals to respond to their context. Appeal Decision 6010535 3 Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. JJ Packman INSPECTOR